October 2009 OS stats: Windows 7 passes Snow Leopard, Linux

In less than two weeks of general availability, Windows 7 has already captured …

Windows 7 arrived two weeks ago and so far it's selling quite well. With Mac OS X 10.6 becoming available less than three months ago, and Ubuntu 9.10 arriving last week, we feel it's a good time to start watching the market share for operating systems, in addition to our monthly posts on browser market share. At this point in time, Windows continues to dominate with more than 90 percent of the market, Mac OS is above the five percent mark, and Linux is just under one percent. In October, Windows was the only operating system not to show positive growth.

Between October and September, Windows dropped 0.25 percentage points (from 92.77 percent to 92.52 percent), Mac OS climbed up a sizeable 0.15 percentage points (from 5.12 percent to 5.27 percent), and Linux edged forward 0.01 percentage points (from 0.95 percent to 0.96 percent). Windows' drop is worth noting given that it occurred in the month that Windows 7 was released, but November may show something different given that it will be a full month of sales of the operating system. Still, Windows 7 did quite well; it managed to pass Linux, Snow Leopard, and even both of their shares combined (2.13 percent versus Windows 7's 2.15 percent):

Source: Net Applications

You can see the market share pie for October 2009, according to Net Applications, at the top of this post. The graph just above shows how things at Ars are different, but not as significantly as when it comes to the browser market: our Mac OS share is five times greater than in the rest of the world, almost six if you count the mobile space as well. Linux also commands six times more of the market. Despite this, more than half of our users are on Windows. The release of Windows 7, Snow Leopard, and Karmic Koala should keep things very interesting well into next year.

93 Reader Comments

why would it be any surprise that windows dominates,especially xp? a lot of people skipped vista and stayed with xp but i suspect you'll see a lot of them switch over to win 7 fairly quickly. in terms of sheer number of course windows dominates and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. personally i run snow leopard and win 7 enterprise on my macbook pro with parallels 5 (which rules, btw) on my macbook pro, so i get the best of both. i'm also considering throwing a karmic vm on there just because i can.

It's just further proof that no matter how good OS-X and any flavor of Linux is, Microsoft wins. Even Vista did this! If they couldn't beat Microsoft with a very flawed version with Windows Vista, they have no chance with Windows 7. So 2010 is another year of Windows. 16 years going on to 17 years.

Now comes the holidays and more PC sales. As we go into 10% unemployment, This is Linux and Apple's Kobayashi Maru, the classic "No Win" scenario.

Originally posted by Bond.:I find it interesting that, based on those bar graphs, it seems the % of OS X users who have upgraded to SL is already equal to the % of Windows users that have upgraded to Vista.

I would hope the growth of a $30 minor update is faster than a > $150 major update. I am using major/minor here to describe the inconvenience caused not amount of code changed.

As a statistician (more or less), I'm not happy with the lack of a definition of "worldwide OS market share". Are you talking about only computers sold at retail? What about devices which are computers but which are sold as specialised devices, like Amazon Kindles, routers, smartphones....? What about large-scale installations of standard distributions of Linux in data centres?

Originally posted by Solid Jedi Knight:It's just further proof that no matter how good OS-X and any flavor of Linux is, Microsoft wins. Even Vista did this! If they couldn't beat Microsoft with a very flawed version with Windows Vista, they have no chance with Windows 7. So 2010 is another year of Windows. 16 years going on to 17 years.

Now comes the holidays and more PC sales. As we go into 10% unemployment, This is Linux and Apple's Kobayashi Maru, the classic "No Win" scenario.

This is partly (mostly?) due to the fact that the PC itself dominates the home computer market and > 95% of PC's come with a Windows OS installed by default. I think that until Apple gets off it's high horse and allows anyone to install it's OS on any hardware they will never come close to MS as far as OS market share.

What the survey measures is the percentage of hits for each OS from a variety of web sites. Ignoring the question of how representative the survey is, the measurement has nothing to do with market share (the percent of computers SOLD by each vendor). It is probably more closely related the the installed base share, but even that isn't really close.

That said, do you think anyone is surprised? Apple is a tiny fraction of Microsoft's size in terms of the number of computers in use. Some surveys showed that up to 50% of Intel OS X users have upgraded to SL - a phenomenal adoption rate. Considering that only a tiny percentage of XP users upgraded to Vista (most Vista sales were new computers) and so far only a small percentage of vista users have upgraded to Win7, that's a significant adoption rate.

Originally posted by Solid Jedi Knight:It's just further proof that no matter how good OS-X and any flavor of Linux is, Microsoft wins. Even Vista did this! If they couldn't beat Microsoft with a very flawed version with Windows Vista, they have no chance with Windows 7. So 2010 is another year of Windows. 16 years going on to 17 years.

Now comes the holidays and more PC sales. As we go into 10% unemployment, This is Linux and Apple's Kobayashi Maru, the classic "No Win" scenario.

This is partly (mostly?) due to the fact that the PC itself dominates the home computer market and > 95% of PC's come with a Windows OS installed by default. I think that until Apple gets off it's high horse and allows anyone to install it's OS on any hardware they will never come close to MS as far as OS market share.

They will never do that. Its what makes them a great company and what makes their products great. HP the largets computer company on the face of the planet is nothing but another shitty MS shill for windows. They have nothing to offer except the same old shit everyone else has, without your own OS you are just a tool for MS to make money off of. I would be embarrassed if i were a the number 1 computer retailer in the world and still had to kow tow to a complete moron like Steve Ballmer.

Originally posted by skicow:I think that until Apple gets off it's high horse and allows anyone to install it's OS on any hardware they will never come close to MS as far as OS market share.

Perhaps they'll consider that if their current strategy fails them. Why would they want to play Microsoft's game when they're doing quite well for themselves? It's even more remarkable considering that their strategy has withstood, and indeed even flourished under, the economic downturn.

I think that until Apple gets off it's high horse and allows anyone to install it's OS on any hardware they will never come close to MS as far as OS market share.

Absolutely, but Apple doesn't want high *market* share, they want high *profit* share. With the Mac and the iPhone, they have a tiny overall share of their market, but they rake in a disproportionately huge percentage of that market's profit (90% of all $1000+ computers sold at retail for Macs, and 35% of all smartphone profits for the iPhone). With the iPod, they just happened to get lucky and achieve both.

But they always aim for profit over market share. If they let anyone install OS X on any generic PC, sure, their market share would shoot up tremendously, but they'd lose a ton of money as it would kill their Mac hardware sales, which is where all the money comes from.

Originally posted by Dillinger:...without your own OS you are just a tool for MS to make money off of. I would be embarrassed if i were a the number 1 computer retailer in the world and still had to kow tow to a complete moron like Steve Ballmer.

Exactly, it's not like HP ever made their own OS or anything. Kind of seems like they made a conscious decision to go that route years ago.

Originally posted by skicow:I think that until Apple gets off it's high horse and allows anyone to install it's OS on any hardware they will never come close to MS as far as OS market share.

Perhaps they'll consider that if their current strategy fails them. Why would they want to play Microsoft's game when they're doing quite well for themselves? It's even more remarkable considering that their strategy has withstood, and indeed even flourished under, the economic downturn.

and

quote:

Originally posted by daGUY:Absolutely, but Apple doesn't want high *market* share, they want high *profit* share. With the Mac and the iPhone, they have a tiny overall share of their market, but they rake in a disproportionately huge percentage of that market's profit (90% of all $1000+ computers sold at retail for Macs, and 35% of all smartphone profits for the iPhone). With the iPod, they just happened to get lucky and achieve both.

But they always aim for profit over market share. If they let anyone install OS X on any generic PC, sure, their market share would shoot up tremendously, but they'd lose a ton of money as it would kill their Mac hardware sales, which is where all the money comes from.

What good is a huge share of the market if you're losing money?

I wasn't saying that their current strategy was failing or that they would want to compete with MS's market share, I was merely stating my opinion that they will not be able to approach MS's market share of OS installs unless they allow their OS to be installed on any hardware.

XP will stay dominant for the simple reason that most PCs are just 'dumb' business terminals. You don't need Win7 for a secretary - narf, Admin Assistant - to run Word...so she can tab tab tab tab her indents.

Originally posted by firesign:a lot of people skipped vista and stayed with xp but i suspect you'll see a lot of them switch over to win 7 fairly quickly.

I doubt you'll see much of that. I know a few "normal" users that would like to upgrade to Win7 because their computer that came with Vista runs like crap, and a few more that delayed buying a computer until Win7 came out, but for the most part the only people upgrading with be the power users. All the rest of the home users will keep using what they have until they buy a new computer. Corporate won't start rolling out Win7 in mass for about a year. I would expect the initial uptake of Win7 to be around 15%, then it will taper off and take about two years for Win7 to hit about 50% market share.

By your statement you don't seem to understand why Apple is doing so well. They are doing well because they are not chasing market share at the expense of profit. Apple is not selling $300 netbooks that cannibalize its $1000 notebooks.

What you are asking is for Apple to compete on Microsoft's terms and where Microsoft is strongest, that is a loosing strategy.

quote:

Originally posted by skicow:I wasn't saying that their current strategy was failing or that they would want to compete with MS's market share, I was merely stating my opinion that they will not be able to approach MS's market share of OS installs unless they allow their OS to be installed on any hardware.

Originally posted by Bond.:I find it interesting that, based on those bar graphs, it seems the % of OS X users who have upgraded to SL is already equal to the % of Windows users that have upgraded to Vista.

I would hope the growth of a $30 minor update is faster than a > $150 major update

Sure. But approx. 1/5 of the price + 1/18 of the time (based on RTM) still qualifies as being of interest to me.

Apple is increasing OS X market share. They are just doing it in a creatively different way. They are increasing OS X market share by adapting it for use on devices other than personal computers. Introducing OS X to new markets that are having the exponential growth that personal computers no longer have.

With the Mac going intel, the iPhone, and the iPod Touch, OS X use has grown 300%.

quote:

Originally posted by new2mac:As for OSX, Apple really need to double that market share already.

These stats pretty meaningless without even a link to the methodology and margin or error. Since it was just hits to %website%, I really don't know what the point is. It could be msn.com for all we know, which every Windows OS in the universe is automatically* set to, whereas an Apple user may never go to it.

And all the Linux users are too busy screwing with stuff to browse the web

*unless you change it via a Wizard or the inetcpl.

quote:

I would venture a guess that 70% of those XP users don't have SP3 either.

Considering that SP3 is a default download now on WU and MU and AU, I'd venture a guess that you're wrong. Of course, proving either argument would be difficult...

Originally posted by Teno:Apple is increasing OS X market share. They are just doing it in a creatively different way. They are increasing OS X market share by adapting it for use on devices other than personal computers. Introducing OS X to new markets that are having the exponential growth that personal computers no longer have.

With the Mac going intel, the iPhone, and the iPod Touch, OS X use has grown 300%.

quote:

Originally posted by new2mac:As for OSX, Apple really need to double that market share already.

Well hell, if you are going to count that, let's add up WinCE and WinMob too...

And Linux can add in Android and all of those server OSes that don't browse the net.

Originally posted by Teno:By your statement you don't seem to understand why Apple is doing so well. They are doing well because they are not chasing market share at the expense of profit. Apple is not selling $300 netbooks that cannibalize its $1000 notebooks.

What you are asking is for Apple to compete on Microsoft's terms and where Microsoft is strongest, that is a loosing strategy.

quote:

Originally posted by skicow:I wasn't saying that their current strategy was failing or that they would want to compete with MS's market share, I was merely stating my opinion that they will not be able to approach MS's market share of OS installs unless they allow their OS to be installed on any hardware.

What? Please tell me how you get that out of my statement.

I know why Apple is doing well, and I'm not saying that Apple needs to compete with MS for OS market share, or that it should be their strategy for success, I'm merely stating that if they wanted to approach MS's OS market share they would need to allow their OS to be installed on any hardware. That's all.

Nowhere in my posts have I said that Apple is failing as a company and has a bad strategy because they are not going after OS market share.

Originally posted by Dillinger:...without your own OS you are just a tool for MS to make money off of. I would be embarrassed if i were a the number 1 computer retailer in the world and still had to kow tow to a complete moron like Steve Ballmer.

Exactly, it's not like HP ever made their own OS or anything. Kind of seems like they made a conscious decision to go that route years ago.

They should sell their computers with a consumer version of that OS. It probably kicks ass.

Originally posted by Solid Jedi Knight:It's just further proof that no matter how good OS-X and any flavor of Linux is, Microsoft wins. Even Vista did this! If they couldn't beat Microsoft with a very flawed version with Windows Vista, they have no chance with Windows 7. So 2010 is another year of Windows. 16 years going on to 17 years.

Now comes the holidays and more PC sales. As we go into 10% unemployment, This is Linux and Apple's Kobayashi Maru, the classic "No Win" scenario.

This is partly (mostly?) due to the fact that the PC itself dominates the home computer market and > 95% of PC's come with a Windows OS installed by default. I think that until Apple gets off it's high horse and allows anyone to install it's OS on any hardware they will never come close to MS as far as OS market share.

They will never do that. Its what makes them a great company and what makes their products great. HP the largets computer company on the face of the planet is nothing but another shitty MS shill for windows. They have nothing to offer except the same old shit everyone else has, without your own OS you are just a tool for MS to make money off of. I would be embarrassed if i were a the number 1 computer retailer in the world and still had to kow tow to a complete moron like Steve Ballmer.

Just for the record, they actually did this in the 90's and it didn't work.Drivel like this post is why I will never, ever own a Mac. I just don't like the company or its users.

Originally posted by Solid Jedi Knight:It's just further proof that no matter how good OS-X and any flavor of Linux is, Microsoft wins. Even Vista did this! If they couldn't beat Microsoft with a very flawed version with Windows Vista, they have no chance with Windows 7.

Um, what did you expect? Vista was released about three years ago. DId you really expect Apple and/or Linux to completely crush Microsoft in that timeframe? Fact is that Microsoft has constantly lost market-share for several years now. Of course their dominance of the market will not end overnight, they are VERY entrenched and they are a lot of inertia going for them.

When Vista was released, many people believed that it will be a success, because that's what people will end up buying. But that did not happen. It's quite telling that after three years, Vista only managed to get about 20% market-share.

I'm using Netapplications-stats here, so take them with grain of salt. But their numbers should be consistent with itself, so it shows a trend. Since November 2007 OS X has increased it's market-share from 3.43% to 5.27%. In two years their market-share has increased 53%. That's nothing to sneeze at. Linux has went from 0.65% to 0.96%. That's increase of 47%.

quote:

So 2010 is another year of Windows.

Did you REALLY expect OS X and/or Linux to get over 50% market-share in just three years? Seriously?

quote:

Now comes the holidays and more PC sales. As we go into 10% unemployment, This is Linux and Apple's Kobayashi Maru, the classic "No Win" scenario.

How exactly? "experts" claimed that financial crisis coupled with the fact that Apple does not sell netbooks or other low-cost computers would more or less ruin Apple. Yet reality was something different. Sales of Macs went up, their revenue and profits went up...

And how would unemployment harm Linux? I would say that this crisis means that people are more careful with their spending. So on the one hand, why would they buy Windows when Linux is free? And on the other hand, it doesn't seem to harm Macs, since people seem to think that Macs are good value, even though they don't have rock-bottom prices.

Originally posted by Solid Jedi Knight:It's just further proof that no matter how good OS-X and any flavor of Linux is, Microsoft wins. Even Vista did this! If they couldn't beat Microsoft with a very flawed version with Windows Vista, they have no chance with Windows 7.

Um, what did you expect? Vista was released about three years ago. DId you really expect Apple and/or Linux to completely crush Microsoft in that timeframe? Fact is that Microsoft has constantly lost market-share for several years now. Of course their dominance of the market will not end overnight, they are VERY entrenched and they are a lot of inertia going for them.

When Vista was released, many people believed that it will be a success, because that's what people will end up buying. But that did not happen. It's quite telling that after three years, Vista only managed to get about 20% market-share.

I'm using Netapplications-stats here, so take them with grain of salt. But their numbers should be consistent with itself, so it shows a trend. Since November 2007 OS X has increased it's market-share from 3.43% to 5.27%. In two years their market-share has increased 53%. That's nothing to sneeze at. Linux has went from 0.65% to 0.96%. That's increase of 47%.

quote:

So 2010 is another year of Windows.

Did you REALLY expect OS X and/or Linux to get over 50% market-share in just three years? Seriously?

quote:

Now comes the holidays and more PC sales. As we go into 10% unemployment, This is Linux and Apple's Kobayashi Maru, the classic "No Win" scenario.

How exactly? "experts" claimed that financial crisis coupled with the fact that Apple does not sell netbooks or other low-cost computers would more or less ruin Apple. Yet reality was something different. Sales of Macs went up, their revenue and profits went up...

And how would unemployment harm Linux? I would say that this crisis means that people are more careful with their spending. So on the one hand, why would they buy Windows when Linux is free? And on the other hand, it doesn't seem to harm Macs, since people seem to think that Macs are good value, even though they don't have rock-bottom prices.

The computer market is saturated there aren't many new people to sell computers to. For Apple to grow desktop market share they would have to compete with Windows to steal market share. This would be a loosing strategy and that is why Apple doesn't bother with it.

Instead of doing that Apple has focused on new markets such as the smartphone where they actually can grow market share and profit.

quote:

Originally posted by skicow:What? Please tell me how you get that out of my statement.

I know why Apple is doing well, and I'm not saying that Apple needs to compete with MS for OS market share, or that it should be their strategy for success, I'm merely stating that if they wanted to approach MS's OS market share they would need to allow their OS to be installed on any hardware. That's all.

Nowhere in my posts have I said that Apple is failing as a company and has a bad strategy because they are not going after OS market share.

Originally posted by Bond.:I find it interesting that, based on those bar graphs, it seems the % of OS X users who have upgraded to SL is already equal to the % of Windows users that have upgraded to Vista.

I would hope the growth of a $30 minor update is faster than a > $150 major update. I am using major/minor here to describe the inconvenience caused not amount of code changed.

Windows 7 isn't a "> $150" upgrade. Best Buy will sell you a retail upgrade box of Home Premium for $120.